 |
Photos by
Reed Hutchinson |
Partnership, visionary leaders were critical to campaign's success
Campaign UCLA, the most successful fund-raising campaign in the history of higher education, owes its success to an amazing partnership — the academic leadership, faculty, donors, volunteers, staff, alumni and students who made it possible. With more than $3 billion raised, the 10-year effort will ensure that UCLA continues to advance knowledge, educate the workforce, power the economy and enrich people’s lives. UCLA Today Editor Cynthia Lee spoke with Vice Chancellor for External Affairs Michael Eicher, who oversaw this drive from its inception.
Was it clear from the beginning that Campaign UCLA would be so successful?
In the mid-’90s, we did a feasibility study that predicted if we did everything right, we might reach $1 billion. We set our original goal at $1.2 billion, at that time the highest goal ever attempted by a public university. I remember sitting in my office with a couple of staff people, saying, “We simply can’t do it.” And here we are today: over $3 billion. It is stunning, considering where we started.
What were the driving forces that gave Campaign UCLA such momentum?
Among the most important was the fact that we built this phenomenal partnership among the development staff, academic leadership and volunteers. Our key partnership has been with the Campaign Cabinet volunteers, led by Bob Wilson. Bob has been a fantastic partner and an amazingly effective Campaign Chair.
The first campaign in the 1980s was centrally organized, staff-driven with volunteer help and sprang out of successful efforts in medicine and athletics. From the beginning, Campaign UCLA was universitywide. It was much more decentralized. The deans took the lead and owned its successes. It significantly changed the UCLA fund-raising culture.
How important was it to have a vision?
If you look at the places where we have been hugely successful, you’ll find a strong, dynamic academic leader who can articulate a clear vision and instill confidence in our direction with an understanding of the role private gift support will play in achieving that vision.
The Broad Art Center is a wonderful example of how well that worked. Eli and Edye Broad gave $23 million to the School of the Arts and Architecture to build an arts complex. We once thought that only medicine could develop the vision that would attract that kind of gift. Why did it happen? Because the then-dean, Daniel Neuman (now the executive vice chancellor and provost) said, “Here is where we have to go. If we want to get there, we have to think expansively.”
This happened in other parts of the campus. Dr. Gerald Levey’s bold vision was not just limited to a new hospital, but included other research facilities that are essential to pushing the boundaries of science.
Consider this: More than half of the campaign dollars we raised came from 92 donors who each made gifts of $5 million or more. They gave at this leadership level because our vision connected with them in a way that made them believe their giving would have real impact.
Just as important, almost 225,000 people made gifts of less than that amount, the vast majority under $25,000. That breadth of support forms the basis for future success in attracting private dollars to UCLA. Donors at every level made a difference in this Campaign, and I’m probably more proud of that than I am of the cumulative total.
Will the campaign have a far-reaching impact that will be felt universitywide?
These funds deepen and broaden UCLA’s excellence campuswide, from the College of Letters and Science to the 11 professional schools and UCLA Medical Center — not just in new buildings and enhanced facilities, but in student fellowships and scholarships, in endowed faculty chairs to attract the best faculty, and in wide-ranging academic disciplines, research and patient-care programs. We added more than $900 million in new gifts to UCLA’s endowment. This money will be invested and UCLA will use the income from these funds forever.
Will every faculty member feel a direct benefit from the campaign? I hope so, but I am a realist. Almost all of the money contributed has been earmarked by donors to be used in particular ways. These are restricted funds that we are required by the donor and by law to use for the donor-designated project, program or purpose.
These funds enhance our excellence overall, which ultimately benefits all faculty members and students. Private giving makes UCLA stronger and better able to compete, and provides a margin of excellence vital to UCLA’s mission. But will every faculty member get a piece of it to spend the way he or she sees fit? Unfortunately, that is just not how these things work. But the impact of the campaign must be felt in the aggregate; UCLA is today a more vibrant, exciting place than it was even 10 years ago. Our success in private fund-raising is a key contributor to those changes.
Will the campaign dollars lessen UCLA’s dependence on state money?
No. The funds we raised do not replace the support we receive from the state. While state funding comprises around 15% of UCLA’s operating budget, the university still very much relies on state support because, as I mentioned, donors have earmarked their gifts to be used in new and exciting — but specific — ways. These gifts serve as important catalysts, providing seed money for research that often leads to government grants. For example, a prostate cancer program at UCLA’s Jonsson Cancer Center and the Department of Urology was started with private support. In 2002, the program was designated by the National Cancer Institute as a site of research excellence and was awarded a five-year, $11.5-million federal grant. The program pulls in researchers and clinicians from a variety of disciplines to work together on prostate cancer.
The opportunity to make that kind of an impact is what motivates donors. What we’ve done extraordinarily well in this campaign is to help donors find ways to make that impact, regardless of the size of their gift.
What are some of the success stories from the campaign?
Medicine raised well over half the money in this campaign. The College was raising $7 million annually when the campaign started. At that pace, it would have raised a total of $70 million during the campaign. Instead, they raised $327 million — funds that go to the heart of the university — for endowed chairs, graduate student support, research and buildings.
In fact, all of the academic units exceeded their goals. Our accomplishments during this campaign reinforced the maxim that a rising tide raises all boats. The scope and complexity of this institution allow potential donors to be touched and engaged no matter what their individual interests. We discovered that raising our sights didn’t place a greater strain on some finite pool of resources; our most committed donors give to multiple areas on campus and feel connected to a whole that far exceeds the sum of its parts.
What made the difference in the College’s case?
Tremendous vision by the academic leadership, a first-rate development staff and incredible volunteers, such as Richard Bergman and Garen Staglin, who led the College Campaign Cabinet. Under the leadership of Brian Copenhaver (professor and former provost) and now Patricia O’Brien (executive dean), the College has built a strong program from the base up and made it one of the best around. As the largest producer of UCLA alumni, the College is the focal point of most of our undergraduates’ academic experience. Our challenge is finding ways to re-connect these former students to the aspects of the institution that made a difference in their life after UCLA. In the College, we’ve found many innovative ways to do that, and those efforts have proven quite effective.
With state funding decreasing, private support has become critical to this campus. Can
this high level of giving be sustained?
Let’s look at the history of philanthropy on this campus. UCLA has had two major campaigns. Prior to the first campaign in the ’80s, UCLA was raising $35 million to $40 million a year. Coming out of that effort, UCLA raised $100 million for the first time ever. Then, during the interim years between the first and second campaigns, UCLA averaged $102 million a year in private support. In the second campaign, one of our goals was to raise the level of sustainable support again, this time to $200 million.
Today, we’re averaging $282 million a year. So Campaign UCLA has taken us to another level. What will happen after this campaign? From history, we know we may well level off again, and eventually, we will once more have to invest in development activities. Then who knows what the next step will be? We have plans on the drawing board for some pretty amazing things if we can find ways to fund the program.
What happens now? Do we rest on our laurels?
I’m excited because of what we’ve achieved, but I’m also energized about what lies ahead. We still need to raise more money for graduate student support, to attract and retain the absolute best faculty, and to address capital demands. So we’re working with a small committee of deans to decide what it would take to be a $500-million-a-year program and what kind of vision it would take to drive that.
Clearly, in the short term, there will be a series of smaller campaigns that will focus on critical areas that have not been fully addressed — the needs of the Library and Athletics, for example. Our longer-term fund-raising goals must be driven by a clear, compelling vision that emanates from the academic leadership of this campus. People give generously within their means to big ideas that capture their imagination and help them see what’s possible. As a support unit to the academy, we in External Affairs are charged with taking that vision and helping outside supporters find their passion for it.
What are you most proud of?
Not just raising $3 billion, as exciting as that is. I also like to think about other numbers — the more than 225,000 donors and the 6,000 volunteers.
I’m also proud of the way every unit in External Affairs — not just the Development Office — worked together to make this happen. Think about the kinds of challenges that have faced this team during the decade of Campaign UCLA: leadership changes, a shaky economy, the tragedy of 9/11 and natural disasters — all factors that can impact our ability to generate external support. Any one of these occurrences would have been daunting, but this organization never faltered.
Lastly, this isn’t about my success. This is about standing on the shoulders of giants. People like Alan Charles (former vice chancellor of University Relations), Jim Osterholt (former associate vice chancellor for Development) and Chancellor Emeritus Charles E. Young. People 20 years ago laid the foundation on which this campaign was based. I am also humbled by the participation of our faculty, staff and students in this campaign. When you think about what these groups do every day to contribute to UCLA’s lasting excellence, it’s a testament to their loyalty and the university’s strength that they are willing to give back in this way.
Twenty years from now, I hope someone will say, “What they did back in the 1990s and early 2000s laid the groundwork for the success we’re having today.” That is our basic obligation to future generations of Californians and a fitting tribute to this great university where amazing things happen every day.
|
